1986 (8) TMI 310 - HC - Central Excise

Issues Involved:

1. Public Interest Litigation
2. Alleged Violations of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968
3. Sections 8, 11, 14, and 16 of the Act
4. Sections 85, 86, and 87 of the Act
5. Section 95 of the Act
6. Materialization of Gold Articles and Ornaments
7. Obligation to Make Declarations Under the Act
8. Role of Trusts Controlled by the First Respondent

Detailed Analysis:

1. Public Interest Litigation:
The petitioner, a rationalist and convener of a committee for scientific investigation of paranormal claims, filed the writ petition in public interest. The petitioner claimed to act bona fide, without personal gain, to address what he perceived as a violation of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 by the first respondent, a reputed God-man. The petitioner argued that authorities had been indifferent to his representations since 1981, compelling him to seek judicial intervention.

2. Alleged Violations of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968:
The petitioner alleged that the first respondent materialized gold articles and ornaments from thin air and distributed them to devotees, which constituted a violation of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to direct the authorities to take action against the first respondent for these alleged violations.

3. Sections 8, 11, 14, and 16 of the Act:
The petitioner initially referenced Sections 8, 11, 14, and 16 of the Act. However, during arguments, the petitioner's counsel conceded that Sections 8 and 14 were not specifically relevant. The primary focus was on alleged violations of Sections 11 and 16.

4. Sections 85, 86, and 87 of the Act:
The petitioner claimed that the first respondent's actions were punishable under Sections 85, 86, and 87 of the Act. These sections outline penalties for contraventions of the Act's provisions.

5. Section 95 of the Act:
The petitioner also sought action against respondents 3 to 5 under Section 95 of the Act, alleging they failed to discharge their duties by not addressing the first respondent's alleged violations.

6. Materialization of Gold Articles and Ornaments:
The petitioner alleged that the first respondent materialized gold articles and ornaments, which were then distributed to devotees. The petitioner argued that this constituted "making, manufacturing, preparing or processing" gold articles and ornaments, thus violating Section 11 of the Act.

7. Obligation to Make Declarations Under the Act:
The petitioner contended that the first respondent failed to make the necessary declarations under Section 16 of the Act regarding the gold articles and ornaments materialized and distributed. The petitioner argued that this omission was punishable under Sections 86 and 87 of the Act.

8. Role of Trusts Controlled by the First Respondent:
The petitioner claimed that the first respondent controlled various trusts, which might be the source of the gold articles and ornaments. The petitioner argued that these trusts had not complied with the Gold Control Legislation, implying a connection between the trusts and the materialized articles.

Judgment Analysis:

1. Materialization and Section 11:
The court concluded that the materialization of gold articles and ornaments by the first respondent did not constitute "making, manufacturing, preparing or processing" under Section 11 of the Act. The terms "make," "manufacture," "prepare," and "process" were not defined in the Act and should be understood in their popular sense, connected to business, commerce, or trade. The court held that materializing articles from thin air did not involve the operations prohibited by Section 11.

2. Declaration Under Section 16:
The court found no obligation for the first respondent to make declarations under Section 16 of the Act. Since the articles were materialized and immediately given away, the first respondent did not acquire ownership, possession, custody, or control of the articles. Therefore, Section 16 did not apply.

3. Role of Trusts:
The court dismissed the petitioner's argument regarding the trusts. The petitioner's own averments suggested that the trusts, not the first respondent, might own the gold articles. The court found no material to link the first respondent with the articles owned by the trusts and dismissed the allegation as unsupported.

4. Authorities' Inaction:
The court noted that the authorities had considered the petitioner's representations since 1981 and found no violations by the first respondent. The court agreed with the Standing Counsel for the Central Government that no action was necessary, as no case of violation was made out.

Conclusion:
The court rejected the writ petition, concluding that no case had been made out for the issuance of Rule Nisi. The court found no violations of Sections 11 and 16 of the Act by the first respondent and no basis for directing action against respondents 2 to 5 under Section 95 of the Act.

← Previous Next →